My Own Private Geneva

Here's a comment on Andrew Sullivan's blog about the use of torture against Arab and Muslim detainees:

McCain is right -- it's our reputation that matters here.

And, if you're fighting fanatical terrorists, it's good to have a reputation for aggressive interrogation techniques. As long as it's within the law, JUST DO IT. That's what the Administration has done, and more power to them. Degrading treatment and aggressive interrogation techniques designed to open hearts and minds are all admissible under the law, as long as it's not torture, and that's as it should be.

Welcome to America, Andrew. I think you'll find that a vast majority of the American people want our lawyers to tell us the limits of the law. Americans don't want the French or the Swedes or the Germans to define the limits for our interrogation techniques during GWOT. Nor do they want those limits to be defined by the liberal salons in NYC and San Francisco, or their silly liberal op-ed writers. And torture has a legal definition which should not be allowed to be dumbed down by the sensitivities of talking heads, bloggers, literati, and glitterati. That's American, and it's good.

Short of torture, I'm glad that they're doing what they can and should to break these awful men. That's a good reputation to have in the Arab world -- screw the cultural sensitivities of the European softies. They're not with us in this war, so bother them all.

Soon, I think the Paki-bashers in merry old England will blow up a mosque or two. And they will do that because they don't have any faith in their authorities taking a hard line on English terrorists. I don't think that will happen in America, but it may if we get attacked too.

The McCain quote to which Mr. Torture Is American refers was the senator's reaction to the Schmidt report's findings:

"I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America as to adhering to certain standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they might be."

McCain is saying here that torture damages our reputation; Andrew's commenter seems to be saying that torture enhances our reputation.

He's also saying that what was done to detainees at Guantanamo (as specified in the Schmidt report) is within the law, and not torture. Andrew's reaction:

...much of this is against the law, unless you believe that the president can change the law as he sees fit in wartime. [Emphasis mine.]

Let's take a look at Mr. Torture Is American's other remarks one by one:

Degrading treatment and aggressive interrogation techniques designed to open hearts and minds are all admissible under the law, as long as it's not torture, and that's as it should be.

Is he saying that torture is not acceptable because it's against the law, or because it's morally wrong? Why does "degrading treatment and aggressive interrogation techniques designed to open hearts and minds" not rise to the level of torture? Is it because these treatments and techniques are "admissible within the law," or is it because these treatments and techniques are morally correct? In short, what determines whether a specific act -- say pouring water over a detainee's head 17 times to induce the sensation of drowning -- is torture, or merely "an aggressive interrogation technique"? Is it ethics and morality, or is it a legal statute? Are we dealing with selective morality and situational ethics here?

Welcome to America, Andrew. I think you'll find that a vast majority of the American people want our lawyers to tell us the limits of the law. Americans don't want the French or the Swedes or the Germans to define the limits for our interrogation techniques during GWOT. Nor do they want those limits to be defined by the liberal salons in NYC and San Francisco, or their silly liberal op-ed writers.

The French, the Swedes, and the Germans did not force America, and by extension the American people, to sign on to the Geneva Conventions or to the Convention Against Torture. Both of these treaties include legal definititions of torture, and proscribe torture -- as well as "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" -- at all times, in all places, and for any reason. The French, Swedes, and Germans also did not write the U.S. Constitution; nor did they have anything to do with the passage of legislation in 1994 making it a crime for American officials to commit acts of torture outside the United States.

And torture has a legal definition which should not be allowed to be dumbed down by the sensitivities of talking heads, bloggers, literati, and glitterati. That's American, and it's good.

Yes, torture does have a legal definition; however, it's people like Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush who have "dumbed it down" -- not talking heads, bloggers, literati, or glitterati.

Short of torture, I'm glad that they're doing what they can and should to break these awful men.

Why? Giving Mr. Torture Is American the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume he's glad military interrogators are doing what they can to "break these awful men" because he thinks breaking them will result in accurate, truthful, useful information; and not because he is a sadist who enjoys breaking other human beings.

But if he believes torture will elicit useful information, he's wrong. It won't, it can't, it never does. And condoning torture because the victims are "awful men" is just plain stupid. Aside from the fact that he has no clue about what those men have done or tried to do because none of them have been charged with a crime or been shown the evidence (if any) against them, torture is always used against "awful" men and women. I'm sure Mr. Torture Is American believes that torturing wonderful men and women is very wrong and immoral, but wonderful, innocent, good, decent men and women are never tortured. If you don't believe it, just ask the people who do the torturing anywhere in the world; ask the official authorities who order and sanction the torture as well. They never torture good people who have done nothing wrong.

That's a good reputation to have in the Arab world -- screw the cultural sensitivities of the European softies.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, huh? Good guys finish last; evil is stronger than good, right? The U.S. certainly can't make the terrorists turn into good guys; but apparently the terrorists can make Americans turn into bad guys. When dealing with evil, do as the evildoers do. When was the last time an evildoer said, "When dealing with goodness, do as good people do"? That's why I say evil is stronger than good. Evil can bring good over to the dark side; but goodness apparently is too weak to bring evil to the light side. Terrorism is on the march, so might as well get with the winning team.

But I admit, I'm surprised. I thought conservatives were upset about liberals damaging America's image in the Arab/Muslim world. I can't count the number of times I've heard Bush supporters complain that Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere have a totally twisted and distorted idea of what America is like. Now, come to find out conservatives want the Arab/Muslim world to think Americans are the Great Satan.

Go figure.